Are you a True Believer in the New Religion

a reply to: queenofswords

Man made climate impact is a scientific fact, not a blind belief.

Have you forgotten about Chloroflurocarbons, aka, CFC's? These compounds destroy ozone - Fact. NASA projected that without restriction of CFC's, the ozone O3 layer would be GONE by 2060.



Without the ozone layer, no UV protection, meaning mass death.

By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On 2 March 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.

Seems to me a lot of the climate change deniers only react or care about climate effects that will show significant impact within their life time...if its something like CO2 and fossil fuel emissions which will do significant damage over several centuries, they couldnt care less.

My conclusion? This isnt a new religion to misappropriate money. It is a scientifically accepted situation involving the continuity of our environment and thus, our species.

It's not a religion. It is foresight.

a reply to: queenofswords

Nothing will happen, especially until 2020.

Follow the money and you'd come to realize that the really big players are not in the green energy sector. That fact alone leaves me very skeptical of any and all man-made climate change skepticism in general.

I believe in following the money. That is what this OP is trying to do. It is not trying to knock down the new religion.

Let's face it: you can't knock down this religion, the only way is forward. And many scientists are fully aware of the problems and regularly call out "confirmation bias". The Dialectic of Enlightenment in action, if you will:

...
So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete. Perhaps it is only a part of a bigger picture that includes new physics hidden deep in the subatomic world or in the dark recesses of the universe. New information from experiments at the LHC will help us to find more of these missing pieces.

The Standart Model

Take that as an analogy to your topic. I have yet to see all this new information in an alternative climate theory. Especially now, as PlanetX didn't show up (yet). Falling back into another mysticism isn't an option for me, thus I'll keep working with the "Standart Model" of climate change until something better comes up.

a reply to: infolurker

Certainly doesn't coincide with the Industrial revolution which began at that exact point.




Looks like a hockey stick to me.

These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800). The increases and current atmospheric levels are the result of the competition between sources (the emissions of these gases from human activities and natural systems) and sinks (their removal from the atmosphere by conversion to different chemical compounds--for example, CO2 is removed by photosynthesis and conversion to carbonates)

www.acs.org...

a reply to: CreationBro

This thread is not an argument against eliminating or restricting known environmentally destructive compounds.

That's the problem with The New Religion of Climatology. They have become fanatics that corner one and wag their finger in your face and spout off what an evil devil you are for not buying into all the programs hook, line, and sinker. They chastise you for not wanting to contribute your soul to their coffers (along with your money) in perpetuity.

Yes, I indeed do believe that there is misappropriation of funds.

Yes, I indeed do believe there is WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE in these programs and initiatives.

Yes, I indeed do believe taxpayers have been bilked, milked, and sometimes fed a load of horse# to get them to pony up.

Yes, I indeed do believe there is a cabal of globalist elites that have an agenda other than environmental concerns.

Yes, I indeed do believe Climatology has become a religion where opposing studies and opinions that go against the current consensus are treated spuriously.

a reply to: queenofswords

I agree that some are abusing the situation to profit off of it, misappropriate funds, etc. and that is simply unacceptable.

We have seen people like them in countless different situations attempt or succeed in profiting off of chaos or situations that may warrant PROPER allocation of research funds and funds for applications of technology, as well as legislation and regulatory standards.

I dont disagree with you that these folks are despicable.

a reply to: CreationBro

Omitted from this story of mass destruction is the fact that the amounts of chlorine contained in all the world’s CFCs are insignificant compared to the amount of chlorine put into the atmosphere from natural sources.

The Montreal Protocol is a template, but not for pushing the need for a Climate Protocol. It is a template

· For how ozone destruction by human produced Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was a test run for the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming.

· Not because it worked, but because it was completely unnecessary, cost a lot of money and created a multitude of other problems.

· Because humans were blamed for atmospheric ozone destruction without evidence, while natural processes were ignored.

· For using a global environmental issue as justification for establishing a world government.

· For establishing the efficacy of claiming natural events as unnatural.

· For allowing bureaucrats to create and control the entire process outside of normal scientific methods, codes of conduct, and accountability.

· For establishing how bureaucrats could control the political agenda on environmental and climate issues.

The Montreal Protocol appeared to work because there was no problem in the first place. Variations in ozone were perfectly natural. If you don’t know this, you are scientifically incompetent. But that doesn’t matter because they need its false success for political reasons.

A 1974 Club of Rome comment said, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is man.” Their anti-humanity theme continued in the 1994 Club of Rome book, The First Global Revolution. It was written in 1994 but is more reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

a reply to: queenofswords
www.activistpost.com...

How would you achieve your righteous ends? Would you simply do nothing if you could not turn to government?

I ask because too often, noble goals serve as a Trojan Horse for political control.

Governments often present us with grand solutions as gifts for our real and perceived problems, but once inside the gates, they proceed to saddle our communities with a slew of regulations, mandates, taxes, diktats, quotas, subsidies, penalties and the like. The cursed gift of government, it seems, is always a central plan that conflates voluntary cooperation, collective action, and even community itself with centralized political control.

Like many of my generation I used to think the government would have people and assets to solve problems.. Unfortunately my opinion has changed and I now believe they cause more problems than they solve every time they stick the dirty fingers into the pie of civilization.

a reply to: queenofswords

Why is this in the 911 forums? What does any of the OP have to do with 911?

a reply to: CreationBro

Man made climate impact is a scientific fact, not a blind belief.

Do you deny natural climate change? In which Europe was devastated by a 300 year drought long before the industrial age. Or the unexplained Little Ice Age which co-incided with the Sporer Minimum and latter Maunder Minimum of the sun. With some estimates suggesting death toll of 75 million.

So without understanding natural climate change how can one speculate on man made climate change?

If the sun is headed into another Mauder Minimum shouldn't the priority be to understand natural climate change. The failure of worlds crops in another LIA would ignite further wars of plunder.

a reply to: D8Tee

Excellent post.

Never again should man give his heart, mind, and soul (not to mention $$$) blindly over to something that someone else has said is righteous and truthful.

For deception to be successful, it has to be inculcated into the very psyche. Once that happens, it is easy to manipulate even those who think they're the smartest on the planet.

a reply to: glend

Don't tell them about the little ice age, they'll get scared.

Much more to fear from climate change if we were to experience a couple degrees of cooling.

At this point in history we could expect hundreds of millions to starve to death.

1974 CIA Report on climate change.

Link

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: queenofswords

Why is this in the 911 forums? What does any of the OP have to do with 911?

That's already been addressed on the first page of the thread.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: queenofswords

Why is this in the 911 forums? What does any of the OP have to do with 911?

It has now been moved to the Fragile Earth? forum.

Oh well, it was more about the Climate Scam to bilk taxpayers with various and sundry programs, initiatives, funds, studies, etc. to move money around.

I didn't intend for it to be a discussion on Climate change per se.

a reply to: D8Tee

At this point in history we could expect hundreds of millions to starve to death.

Thanks for the link.

The death toll in Europe during LIA was minimized because people could still hunt and fish for food. With todays greater population and dwindling natural food supplies (oceans fished out etc) I fear a reoccurance of LIA will have far greater ramifications, stretching infrastructure and resources way beyond their breaking limit. Hunger, disease, wars of plunder, riots etc could result in over 50% of the worlds population at risk which is a figure quoted in a recent study some months back (I tried to find the link but failed).

Might help explain why FEMA has been stockpiling food and buying millions of disposable coffins.

Added... GLobal Warming could be just a cover story to try keep the lid on the real problem as long as possible.

Maybe they shuold put the money into US education? It seems desperatley needed.

It's a scientific fact, not a myth. I'll put it in the simplest terms possible.

Carbon is Black
Black things absorb heat
The more Carbon in the atmopshere, the warmer the atmosphere.

Most three or four year olds have already mastered that level. Time to play catch up.

originally posted by: bastion
Maybe they shuold put the money into US education? It seems desperatley needed.

It's a scientific fact, not a myth. I'll put it in the simplest terms possible.

Carbon is Black
Black things absorb heat
The more Carbon in the atmopshere, the warmer the atmosphere.

Most three or four year olds have already mastered that level. Time to play catch up.

Holy jumping jesus I hope you are joking?

Tell me this is not your actual understanding of Man Made Climate Change?

a reply to: D8Tee

Except that we can explain natural fluctuations pretty good by now.

...
We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum

And the wildest imaginations didn't turn out to be true.

2017 total: 38 days (25%)

www.spaceweather.com...

So yeah. Colour me not very scared at all.

originally posted by: bastion
Maybe they shuold put the money into US education? It seems desperatley needed.

It's a scientific fact, not a myth. I'll put it in the simplest terms possible.

Carbon is Black
Black things absorb heat
The more Carbon in the atmopshere, the warmer the atmosphere.

Most three or four year olds have already mastered that level. Time to play catch up.

Comprehension may be an issue, the op is not arguing that increased carbon levels do not affect the environment, the op is arguing that the whole climate change issue has become a huge cash grab with the funds being miss appropriated. The story being sold to the public has similarity to religion in its dogma like belief.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Your paper is behind a paywall.

I don't put a lot of faith in proxy data to tell us what was happening 3000 years ago and have it be accurate to 1 or 2 degrees. Even worse in this case, analyze a proxy to get wind speed and that in turn tells the temperature or solar activity? I'm not buying it.

From your source, the part that I could actually read without paying 18 bucks. Have you read the whole thing? Or you just grabbed some random paper that fits your agenda?

Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate1 by inducing atmospheric changes. Specifically, it has been suggested that centennial-scale climate variability during the Holocene epoch was controlled by the Sun2, 3. However, the amplitude of solar forcing is small when compared with the climatic effects and, without reliable data sets, it is unclear which feedback mechanisms could have amplified the forcing. Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before presen

a reply to: queenofswords

I have not delved into it as much as I would like to or you have. With that said what you are saying is exactly what a lot of this has been leading me to believe. I have a friend that works for the EPA and he keeps telling me the money they have wasted and pushed around to people who have no right having it could have found technology or others ways to control emissions and such. If I ask anything he just repeats the same or something similar and says that's all I am saying.